Motorsports Problem Solving Done Right (1 Viewer)

[clwill]

I don't know if any of you read Racecar Engineering magazine, but more people in drag racing should. It's a British publication that, while it focuses on F1 and other road course racing, also has a section called Stockcar Engineering that discusses NASCAR and such. And there is the occasional drag racing article.

The magazine is a very technical look at all things motorsport and is very much on the cutting edge. One look through it and you'll soon realize how ancient drag racing is, with the pushrod V8, carbs, and so on. Sure you see ads for companies we know (ARP, Goodridge, and many others), but there are lots of amazing companies and ideas and things being done in Europe that we can learn from.

But that's not my point in this post. There is an article in July's issue that seems particularly apropos right now. It chronicles what FIA did in 2008 when racecars were getting airborne and flipping over at an alarming rate. They did investigations on each accident, and shared the results widely. They involved Porsche, Audi, Honda, and Peugeot and their race teams. They talked with the IRL to discuss the changes they had made in IndyCar. They did wind tunnel testing, involved the vendors (tires, car designers, etc) and even looked at regulations they had changed in 2004 to see what effect they had. And they involved the teams in understanding what they wanted and could afford.

In the end FIA came up with a simple four step plan, three aerodynamics changes, and... lowered the horsepower in the cars to slow them down. It was phased in over two years: 2010 for the aero and the horsepower change goes in effect next year. In all there have been no airborne incidents this year, but the season's just getting started.

It seems that there is a lot NHRA could learn from other motorsports. Do they connect with them? Does NHRA brass have lunch with FIA (or NASCAR or IndyCar or ...) brass? Or is there a "drag racing's so different, it doesn't apply" attitude? Do they learn from how other sanctioning bodies handle crisis, or do they reinvent it for themselves? Do we avail ourselves of all the leading edge technology and research that's done around the world in the area of safety?

It's times like these when winning organizations don't close up but rather they involve everyone who could possibly help. I hope that's what NHRA will do.

 

[Speed1288]

Amazon.com: Rapid Response: My inside story as a motor racing…

A good read about safety advancement and solutions as well

 

[jm]

TAFC/TAD Classes to be required to switch to Carbon Brakes. Steel no longer allowed, after July 25.

 

[clwill]

TAFC/TAD Classes to be required to switch to Carbon Brakes. Steel no longer allowed, after July 25.

Great, that'll fix everything. Super.

 

[jm]

They need to also look @ how these chutes are mounted, or lack thereof...

 

[Treeshaker]

NHRA is trying to be truthful and inform the public of what took place in this incident and the changes that will be made mandatory because of it, and all we can do is express sarcasm?

As in all of life, a series of events take place that end up making the final outcome. If you change any one of the events, the outcome will vary.

In this case, when the chutes blossomed, the force of both hitting at once broke the mounting location out of the aluminum rear housing. On our top fuel cars we have the mount bolted to the bottom of the rear as an anti-rotation device and then extend it forward with 2 angled tubes that are joined by a perpindicular tube that is attached to the main frame with a cross bolt. That way the chute shock is transferred directly to the frame and not the rear end housing.

If you watch the video, you will notice that the car is slowing and is to a point of starting to bounce, then it smooths out and doesn't slow much afterwards. This is probably where the steel brakes got too hot and gave up the chase. Mark probably realized his predictament and started steering to the middle of the track to enter the sand trap.

Entering the trap and hitting the net straight on caused the car to collapse by curling up over the top and coming back into the cockpit. Maybe if the net was hit at an angle the car would have curled to one side, or not at all, just spin it around and roll over. Who knows?

So if he had a different chute mount, deployed one chute at a time, carbon brakes, angle of entry, scrub speed off by rubbing the wall, or ?, a different outcome would have occured. I am not saying anything was wrong with what Mark did, or the car, or the track, or anything else. I am only pointing out that a whole series of events took place that contributed to this tradgedy.

 

[clwill]

NHRA is trying to be truthful and inform the public of what took place in this incident and the changes that will be made mandatory because of it, and all we can do is express sarcasm?

Forgive my sarcasm, but it just seems always so knee jerk, never thoughtful, considered, open, transparent, leading edge, and everything that FIA's process seemed to be.

Carbon fiber brakes are great. Probably should've been mandatory for some time, I guess. Better chute mounting, cool. What about leading edge devices on the end of the track. A net's the best we can do?

What about a thorough "people die when they go off the end of the track" investigation involving some leading minds in our sport, other motorsports, academia, safety companies, sponsors, and so on? A blue ribbon panel with a good sized budget to weigh all the options (like 1000', and/or slowing cars down, and/or extending tracks, and/or technology to shut cars down, and/or sophisticated catch systems, and ...). Takes some time, hold some public hearings, take input from all sides of the problem. Then issue clear, distinct, public recommendations to the sanctioning body.

In short, a professional, not knee-jerk solution to the problem.

 

[twostep]

In short, a professional, not knee-jerk solution to the problem.

What the hell was NHRA supposed to do, less than one week after Niver's tragic death?

1) Mandatory carbon fiber brakes, front and rear, all TAFC and TAD

2) Mandatory TF and FC style fuel, ignition shutoff and chute deployment radio-activated finish line shutoff devices for TAFC and TAD, beginning 2011

3) Increased/enhanced specs for parachute mounting systems

4) Brainstorming with parachute manufacturers

I'd say that's a pretty good response, four days after the accident, wouldn't you?

How about realizing that in all likelihood a 1000 foot racing surface would not have saved Scott Kalitta, Neal Parker or Mark Niver. How about realizing that in the world of vehicles racing to 300MPH and beyond, driven by exotic engines producing thousands of horsepower, there are, unfortunately, times when fatalites inevitably occur, as painful as that may be to accept. We exercise safety to the Nth degree, but nothing will totally prevent someone passing in an accident. We have our limitations. Beyond that, we simply shutter the tracks and take up golf.

You talk about knee-jerk...this "everybody goes to 1000 feet, all tracks, right now" talk is big time wrong. Do you think Cory Mac can't get killed at 324 MPH? In all likelihood, the only thing an extra 320 feet of racing surface would have done for Neal Parker is given him an extra second of life before the same thing happened. That car didn't slow at all..

The NHRA did exactly what they should have done for now. Addressed ways to directly prevent what most likely killed these two fine racers. Someone said the only safe race car is a parked one. To coin a commercial phrase, we either go full throttle or go home. Well ?

I say go full throttle - sensibly. It can be done.

 

[robinjackson]

Mark Webber's F1 Red Bull got seriously airborne after brushing another car during the European Grand Prix street race at Valencia, Spain, two weeks ago. Webber emerged unhurt after whacking into tire wall in accident shown endlessly on TV (probably on YouTube now).

Webber came back to win the British Grand Prix this past weekend.

 

[mick]

i can appreciate the carbon brakes rule change, but at the same time it would
be nice to possibly hear skepticism regarding the trap/fence/barriers now in place.

again from comp. plus article......graham light

“Obviously when you run into the net at a high rate of speed, you’re going to damage the race car. The problem that you have with our sport is no two vehicles are alike. You have motorcycles, you have heavy cars, you have light cars, long cars, and short cars. So to design a trap that accommodates all the different configurations (of cars) is a big challenge. What we have, we feel has adequately worked for many, many years.”

When Niver’s dragster hit the safety net Sunday, it crumbled up like a wad of paper, but Light felt he had enough information to address that issue.

“It’s premature and I would only be speculating (on why that happened to Niver’s dragster),” Graham said. “They are continuing to investigate and at this point, I can’t give you an honest answer.”

is possible that although YOU (nhra) feel your nets have worked adequately,
that in FACT they either do not or can be vastly improved upon!!
is it possible something about 'our safety equipment may need to be improved or modified'?

why is it so easy to mandate changes on cars, but always deferring questions
regarding the track to "ongoing investigation"?

 

[Paul]

What the hell was NHRA supposed to do, less than one week after Niver's tragic death?

1) Mandatory carbon fiber brakes, front and rear, all TAFC and TAD . . .

Chris, I agree with your basic position that the NHRA has not done as well in insuring the safety of both racers and participants as other racing organizations, in particular F1 and NASCAR.

I realize its difficult for them with their budget limitations, but I don't think that they understand that in the long run, insufficient efforts in the safety area can cause significant economic harm to the NHRA.

I believe they need a full time Director of Safety that is proactively looking at safety issues across the board with the goal of preventing incidents before they happen. I firmly believe that if this individual had been in place, some of the fatalities that have occurred over the past few years could have been prevented.

The NHRA I guess can point to a body and claim that they are performing this function, but I don't see it getting done effectively, as you pointed out in your contrast with F1's approach to a safety issue.

In particular, the comments made by Graham Light in this article:

UPDATED: NHRA LOOKING TO MANDATE CHANGES IN TAF & TAD RANKS

concern me, as he stated:

“That style of net has been successfully used for many, many years at race tracks. The net is the same construction, same manufacturer as all the nets at all the other tracks we run at. "

Insuring driver safety requires continuing improvement in your rules, procedures and methods, and the NHRA just doesn't seem to understand that.
Just because a net is the "same construction" that we've always used doesn't mean its the best one to use now, particularly given that this net design just caused a fatality.

The recent move they made to upgrade the specifications on the braking systems is a step in the right direction, but sometimes both chutes and brakes can fail on a car. I firmly believe that with a "start from scratch" re-design that even the current limited length shut down areas could safely decelerate cars that had gone out of control without endangering the drivers.

The pits need to be designed so that the deceleration of the car occurs smoothly over the entire length of the pit. In the most recent accident the first net was way too stiff, it forced the car to decelerate over around a 10 foot distance, putting way to much force on the car and crushing the chassis.

As I've stated in other posts, I think the most economical way to implement a safe pit would be a redesign of the catch nets to make them compliant, so that instead of trying to quickly stop the car, they decelerate the car smoothly over the full length of the pit, in a similar fashion to how the cable catch system works on aircraft carriers. On carriers this cable is designed to extend with a fixed force so the plane is stopped smoothly over a reasonably long distance to avoid a high deceleration that could damage the plane or the pilot.

A simple and cost effective way to implement this with the current pits would be to replace the current fixed end mounting of the nets with a cable and pulley mounting that drags large dead weights (could be water filled barrels) as the nets extend.

I feel its clearly the responsibility of the NHRA to take a more proactive approach to insuring both driver and spectator safety, and I believe they should immediately fund the design, testing and implementation of improved sand pit areas. As I stated earlier I believe that with a correct design that even the current limited length pit areas could be made to be safe without having to drastically change the racing format.

 

[Silly Savage]

I know, lets design the tracks around the race cars...ya, that'll do it. From now on their will be a 25' high catch fence the entire length of the track so nothing can come into the stands. Every track will now have to be concrete, start to finish so there are no bumps or imperfactions and less traction issues. Also, 3 sets of beems down the track so that there is never a questions about timing or staging for any car/bike/dragster. And how about we add driving lanes protected by a fence system in the pits so that race cars and crews don't intefer with fans walking freely through the pit area. Oh, oh, oh and also why don't we do away with a lot of the sportsman cars and make the turn around for the fuel cars only 30 minutes so the fans don't have to sit so long waiting for the real show to get back on the track. And don't forget to add a ton of big cushy pillows, 30 foot deep sand pit and an anchor system to stop ALL race cars/motorcycles instead of a better chute/braking system on the vehicles.

Maybe why were at it, let's ask NASCAR and the IRL how we can better market drag cars and how THEY would fix drag racing safety issues since they have years more experience with our problems.....

Whatever you do, just don't make the cars safer or try and protect the racers by having a slower, but safer vehicle....Let's make sure we protect the drivers from every possible freak occurance that may ever happen, rather than the things there we can clearly fix now....

 

[nick name]

I'm very much in favor of the new regulations the NHRA has mandated, and for an organization where change has often been glacial I think they've come almost instantly.

My only thought is to wonder if we'll see the same problems the Pro Stock cars had when the carbon fiber systems first appeared. There were quite a few instances of locked brakes when drivers accustomed to steel/asbestos tried to use quick stabs.

Hopefully the word gets around and each team gets a chance for the drivers to become familiar with what they need to be doing.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised that all this time we've been attaching something as important and highly stressed as the parachutes to an aluminum housing. From his description of his modifications, Mr. Hartmann obviously saw the problem. I wonder how many teams haven't.

 

[Treeshaker]

Dan - the attachment method I described is standard fare on all top fuel and nitro funny cars. It has been that way for a long time.

I can only imagine the complexity needed to have a net that gave with the cars considering the different weights, designs and speeds of the errant vehicles.

And I am sure a director of safety would have seen before hand the number of decisions made about the car prior to Scott's run would have ended as it did. The very experienced team didn't foresee the results.

Would the director have foreseen a critical health issue before it takes place during a run? Most individuals have trouble knowing when a stroke, heart attack or seizure is going to happen to themselves, let alone some one else predicting it.

Would he have seen or predicted the set of circumstances that created Mark's incident? Mark was an experienced driver, builder and craftsman and he didn't foresee everything happening on one run. And another video of the car crashing at Pomona showed the car breaking the same way but the driver was unhurt. Maybe a simple change like going into the net at an angle would create more positive results from these crashes.

Or maybe it is just a simple matter of fate where a superior being is saying "son this is your time and place, please come and join me".

 

[TR]

All of these post's are pertinent and a great person was lost, but the fact is the chute's coming off is the main factor to start with. Virgil and his mount description is correct, the mount is hooked to the chassis in a type of anti-rotation device to the chassis and housing. I can only imagine some sort of fatigue may have caused this. Sadly this is another up grade that is written in blood, the blood of a racer a really nice one.

 

[Paul]

Virgil- I know you speak from a position of deep experience in this sport, so please keep in mind that when I differ from your opinions its only after considering your opinions very carefully.

I can only imagine the complexity needed to have a net that gave with the cars considering the different weights, designs and speeds of the errant vehicles.

Fortunately it turns out that there has been a lot of development on this basic problem, using both trial and error and analyzed approaches. Aircraft carrier plane "arrestor" systems (cable based plane deceleration systems) lend a lot of insight into this approach. The early systems, which were effective, used a simple approach of the cable routing through fixed pulleys and then attached to dead weights, which dragged as the cables extended.

A system like this would be pretty economical to implement in the current pits as the existing nets could be used, it would simply require replacing the current fixed net mountings with cables and pulleys and implementing the dead weights, which could be a bundle of water filled barrels.

I agree that selecting the dead weight size would be a compromize based on the range of car weights and speeds, but I believe a reasonably sharp mechanical engineer could implement this design in a way that would be pretty effective for the full range of cars. Almost anything would be better than the current totally stiff net that crumpled Mark Niver's chassis.

And I am sure a director of safety would have seen before hand the number of decisions made about the car prior to Scott's run would have ended as it did. The very experienced team didn't foresee the results.

I fully agree that there are some elements of racing that its possible to make foolproof. Nitro engines are run on the edge, and that's what makes them exciting. Attempting to fully detect and understand what caused Scott's engine to let go may not ever be possible, and I agree that the best safety guy in the world probably couldn't have done anything to prevent that engine explosion.

But from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there were other factors that played a large part in this unfortunate fatality as after the car lost control it apparently struck a pole and then a camera TV crane.

I do believe that if the NHRA had a dedicated safety director, who's top priority (not just one of his many responsibilities) was to make sure every run was being conducted in a safe manner then he likely would have required that at least the camera TV crane be relocated before that track was used.

. . . The very experienced team didn't foresee the results.

This brings up an important point. The safety of the racers cannot be in the teams hands alone for a variety of reasons. The teams are under tremendous pressure to perform, and while many of them balance this off well against making sure their equipment and procedures are safe, some don't perform this balance very well. I agree that the teams should have significant input into safety issues, but other racing organizations figured out a long time ago that you can't have this be the only input, you need a strong central head of safety that works closely with the racers but makes the final decisions based on his unbiased position. For him to be effective (and trusted by the racers), his only "bias" has to be to make the racing as safe as possible given the understandable economic contraints placed on both the teams and the organization.

Would he have seen or predicted the set of circumstances that created Mark's incident? Mark was an experienced driver, builder and craftsman and he didn't foresee everything happening on one run. And another video of the car crashing at Pomona showed the car breaking the same way but the driver was unhurt.

I believe an effective safety director would have been all over that earlier Pomona crash and would have realized that the current net system was decelerating the cars too quickly and placing way too much force on the chassis, and eventually someone was going to get hurt if the system wasn't improved.

To be fully candid, and as I've written here in previous posts, I also believe that if an effective safety director had been in place, the wheel stud failure that caused the unfortunate spectator fatality could have been prevented. There had been several wheel stud failures (with detached wheels) prior to that accident and I believe an effective safety director would have put procedures in place to prevent the detached wheels.

Sincerely,

 

[Bross Hawg]

NHRA is trying to be truthful and inform the public of what took place in this incident and the changes that will be made mandatory because of it, and all we can do is express sarcasm?

As in all of life, a series of events take place that end up making the final outcome. If you change any one of the events, the outcome will vary.

In this case, when the chutes blossomed, the force of both hitting at once broke the mounting location out of the aluminum rear housing. On our top fuel cars we have the mount bolted to the bottom of the rear as an anti-rotation device and then extend it forward with 2 angled tubes that are joined by a perpindicular tube that is attached to the main frame with a cross bolt. That way the chute shock is transferred directly to the frame and not the rear end housing.

If you watch the video, you will notice that the car is slowing and is to a point of starting to bounce, then it smooths out and doesn't slow much afterwards. This is probably where the steel brakes got too hot and gave up the chase. Mark probably realized his predictament and started steering to the middle of the track to enter the sand trap.

Entering the trap and hitting the net straight on caused the car to collapse by curling up over the top and coming back into the cockpit. Maybe if the net was hit at an angle the car would have curled to one side, or not at all, just spin it around and roll over. Who knows?

So if he had a different chute mount, deployed one chute at a time, carbon brakes, angle of entry, scrub speed off by rubbing the wall, or ?, a different outcome would have occured. I am not saying anything was wrong with what Mark did, or the car, or the track, or anything else. I am only pointing out that a whole series of events took place that contributed to this tradgedy.

I know for a fact that there are two allen headed bolts that hold the parachute mount to the rear differential. The diff has threadserts for the bolts. These need to be checked EVERY day to be sure they are tight. I have seen them come back from a run and have one be missing...They are notorious for being loose. Think of the vibration in that area. It is also easy to over look if running a skeleton crew, being behind, etc. This is just speculation, but if they were loose, missing, etc. with both chutes blossoming at the same instant, that is why they broke the mount.

 

[Bross Hawg]

My biggest question from Seattle is...why in the F#*K was the first net in the middle of the damn sand trap? I am not an engineer, but it sure as hell makes a lot of sense to me to keep the car in the sand as long as possble to scrub speed before hitting the net. The catch net should be the very last option to stop the car. They have room at Seattle to have the net at the END of the trap with a secondary net behind it. And for that matter, why use a net for the first second attempt to stop a runaway car? This car could not have been going over 70 mph when it hit. Unfortunatly it was like hitting a fricken' brick wall. The DOT has spent millions of dollars studying what works best for stopping/slowing cars on highways and freeways at speeds up to 80 mph. They use water barriers. First row of barrels/etc quarter filled, second row half filled, third row 3/4, final row full. This absorbs a ton of energy without stopping it instantly. Also, why not look into designing the sand trap like runaway truck ramps? They are designed to stop a 80,000 lbs. truck going 150 mph. Obviously it would take some money to do, but it sure as heck would work alot better.
Just thoughts...

 

[Silly Savage]

Also, why not look into designing the sand trap like runaway truck ramps? They are designed to stop a 80,000 lbs. truck going 150 mph. Just thoughts...

I had the same suggestion, but making it up hill raises other issues. But the sand itself should be changed to better slow cars...most skip right over. Then again, the "flip side" (no pun intended) is the nose catching and the car going end over end, IE Force, Worsham, Shoemaker.....

JR

 

[Huge]

Getting an 80,000 pound truck to sink in sand or gravel is a lot easier then a 2500 pound dragster with a flat belly pan.